Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Right, you masqueraded your opinion as fact. That's very, very "skeptical" of you.

__________________"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

I masquerade nothing. Adults do not write, "my opinion is..." It is poor writing. If you are stating an opinion, it is obvious it is your opinion.

Adults....right. Is the air thinner up there on your 50 foot tall, high horse of semantics? Do "adults" try and score internet points on semantic, ******** topics? I'm asking for a friend.

__________________"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

*shrug* I'd even admit to that being the case to me. I have no issues embracing my bias though. That's always been funny to me, as "skeptics" we aren't supposed to condone or forgive violence against people who want other people dead for nothing more than the color of their skin because...skeptic.

**** Nazi's. All of them. I don't have to accept them because Freedom of Speech exists, but I do believe if you do the crime then you should be held accountable for it. Either way though, never feel bad for punching a nazi in the mouth.

Or running them off a bridge in a park......

__________________Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Seems like a valid question to me. I don't get how swearing = mad. I swear all of the time, and I'm almost never mad.

Originally Posted by dudalb

Or running them off a bridge in a park......

Seems a bit much.

__________________"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

*shrug* I'd even admit to that being the case to me. I have no issues embracing my bias though. That's always been funny to me, as "skeptics" we aren't supposed to condone or forgive violence against people who want other people dead for nothing more than the color of their skin because...skeptic.

**** Nazi's. All of them. I don't have to accept them because Freedom of Speech exists, but I do believe if you do the crime then you should be held accountable for it. Either way though, never feel bad for punching a nazi in the mouth.

Your personal ethics is one thing.

But this debate among skeptics is not a philosophical one about how laws and ethics should be. Instead, we were figuring out what the objective facts are about the Charlottesville events: 1. What did, in fact, happen (who punched whom, who started what, did anybody cry...)? 2. Were any of the actions in fact illegal, criminal according to applicable law? You cannot very well deny that before the law, nazis enjoy the same protections as anybody else. You cannot, in fact, legally punch a nazi in the face just so, even if you personally find this moral.

I am sure you know and understand all of this somewhere on a rational level - where skepticism shines.

But this debate among skeptics is not a philosophical one about how laws and ethics should be. Instead, we were figuring out what the objective facts are about the Charlottesville events: 1. What did, in fact, happen (who punched whom, who started what, did anybody cry...)? 2. Were any of the actions in fact illegal, criminal according to applicable law? You cannot very well deny that before the law, nazis enjoy the same protections as anybody else. You cannot, in fact, legally punch a nazi in the face just so, even if you personally find this moral.

I am sure you know and understand all of this somewhere on a rational level - where skepticism shines.

This conversation, and the questions you're stating now, were answered at the latest on the last page. I'd say when Mead posted that no one could tell if Harris hit the Nazi, it was done...over done. Then it devolved into arguing with racists. Perhaps, in all our shining skepticism, you couldn't recognize a dead thread? By all means, don't let me interfere in this skeptical debate.

__________________"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

But this debate among skeptics is not a philosophical one about how laws and ethics should be. Instead, we were figuring out what the objective facts are about the Charlottesville events: 1. What did, in fact, happen (who punched whom, who started what, did anybody cry...)? 2. Were any of the actions in fact illegal, criminal according to applicable law? You cannot very well deny that before the law, nazis enjoy the same protections as anybody else. You cannot, in fact, legally punch a nazi in the face just so, even if you personally find this moral.

I am sure you know and understand all of this somewhere on a rational level - where skepticism shines.

Exactly. And while it may not be critical or anything, I am really finding it interesting to see what sort of details can be found in multiple videos.

For example, yesterday I questioned the source of the staff held by the man in the pink shirt. He would eventually swing it at Harold Crews. It was in fact a flagpole. I had seen several copies of clips showing the burning of a confederate battle flag during the protests. Who is holding it? The man in the pink shirt. And what is used to ignite the flag? Corey Long's flamesprayer. The staff is in fact the remnants of that flag, which was presumably some sort of spoils of war captured from the alt-right.

Corey Long has now been charged. He was charged with disorderly conduct in the flamesprayer incident, and with assault and battery in what the article I read called "a separate incident". In the videos I saw of the parking garage skirmish, I didn't see anything Long did other than try to steal a confederate flag, so I don't know if the charges sprang from that incident or some other incident that day.

Sorry all you jerks out in internet land that thought she just was a bit out of shape. It turns out she died from being hit by a car.

ETA: The source doesn't necessarily say she was hit by a car. Just blunt force trauma to the chest. It's possible she was hit by something, or someone, who was hit by a car. I suppose there are even other scenarios that are slightly different, but, one way or another, it was the neo-Nazi dude that killed her. Not a heart attack. Not chain smoking.